In my band in New Orleans, when we play "Roadhouse Blues" by The Doors, I always throw in some stuff from "One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer" in the middle of it.

Click to expand...

Thorogood is the man.

Still going hard, too. I was working a show at a concert hall in my hometown in May and happened across a schedule that was still up in the green room for the gig he'd played there the previous night. He had arrived in town that afternoon, played his show and bused out the same night for the next stop.

The idea that the "reputation" of Into Darkness (or ST09, for what matters) has changed over the years is laughable. People who loved it still loves it, and people who hated it still hates it.

The only difference is that people who liked the film simply moved on, while the many of those who disliked it are still seething with the fury of a thousand burning suns. But they are still just a (very) vocal (but tiny) minority.

That just makes me want to not show up for the next one. Of course, that would probably lead to stories that "JJ Abrams is what drew fans to the film." So my voice is marginalized as a "fanboy" who worries about characterization and plot, is offended by all the nods, and feels they took a club to the head of the audience with that counter-terrorism storyline that was about 8 minutes of a 2-hour movie. The rest was just a story about revenge, and then tying it up at the end by saying "Don't do what you just saw in this movie." It was stupid, no one lectured the crew about what they were doing, except Scotty, who acts like a child the rest of the film.

I don't long for the days of Rick Berman. I seriously walked out of the movie theater saying "Why should I go to Star Trek 3?" Orci has nothing to do with it. The continuity errors aren't a part of it. The problem is it relies on people to know the Star Trek universe and I want a movie that stands on its own. If that is too fanboyish, then know this: This fanboy isn't going to fanboy movies. I have seen X-Men, X2, Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, the Star Wars Prequels (all three), and the Star Trek movies. That's it in the last 14 years. Star Trek 3 and X-Men: Apocalypse is all that I want to see. Not Batman/Superman. Not Star Wars: Episode VII (I can't stand JJ Abrams). I'm a very bad fanboy if that's all this is. Star Trek's reputation is what is keeping me coming back, not these movies individually, and I am probably one bad movie experience from never attending another Star Trek, and being very skeptical for another television series, if it were to materialize.

The idea that the "reputation" of Into Darkness (or ST09, for what matters) has changed over the years is laughable. People who loved it still loves it, and people who hated it still hates it.

The only difference is that people who liked the film simply moved on, while the many of those who disliked it are still seething with the fury of a thousand burning suns. But they are still just a (very) vocal (but tiny) minority.

That just makes me want to not show up for the next one. Of course, that would probably lead to stories that "JJ Abrams is what drew fans to the film." So my voice is marginalized as a "fanboy" who worries about characterization and plot, is offended by all the nods, and feels they took a club to the head of the audience with that counter-terrorism storyline that was about 8 minutes of a 2-hour movie. The rest was just a story about revenge, and then tying it up at the end by saying "Don't do what you just saw in this movie." It was stupid, no one lectured the crew about what they were doing, except Scotty, who acts like a child the rest of the film.

I don't long for the days of Rick Berman. I seriously walked out of the movie theater saying "Why should I go to Star Trek 3?" Orci has nothing to do with it. The continuity errors aren't a part of it. The problem is it relies on people to know the Star Trek universe and I want a movie that stands on its own. If that is too fanboyish, then know this: This fanboy isn't going to fanboy movies. I have seen X-Men, X2, Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, the Star Wars Prequels (all three), and the Star Trek movies. That's it in the last 14 years. Star Trek 3 and X-Men: Apocalypse is all that I want to see. Not Batman/Superman. Not Star Wars: Episode VII (I can't stand JJ Abrams). I'm a very bad fanboy if that's all this is. Star Trek's reputation is what is keeping me coming back, not these movies individually, and I am probably one bad movie experience from never attending another Star Trek, and being very skeptical for another television series, if it were to materialize.

Click to expand...

-- If STID was almost entirely about revenge, then TWOK was even more so and not much else. Sorry you did miss all the nice character moments, particularly Kirk's character arc.

-- TVH was very thematically shallow. All it did was club us over the head with a broad message to take care of the environment (through the narrow message of saving the whales). It ended with telling the audience, "don't do what you just saw in this movie," that is, don't hunt whales to extinction. TUC was even more thematically shallow. Clubbing us over the head about the effects of prejudice and stereotypes and reminding us at the end that people can be very afraid of change.

-- In STID Kirk got a helluva lecture from Pike for what he did on Nibiru and apparently even before that.

-- Scotty was childish? He provided some comic relief, but he also killed a man, and was a major hero of the story.

-- Continuity errors? How could there be any? This is a new playground. It's true Trek had plenty of continuity errors in the first universe. Pointing them out is a cottage industry among fans.

-- You say the movie requires knowledge of the Trek universe and doesn't stand on its own. Elaborate, please. It stood on its own as well as any Trek movie to me.

-- I'm not sure what nods offended you, but if you are taking offense, maybe you're also taking it a wee bit too seriously. All of the movies you mentioned above are pop culture popcorn movies, after all. It's not like anyone is doing Shakespeare and mangling it terribly.

The film is fine. Nerd rage over it was silly a year ago, as it is now.

As I said the other day:

Star Trek Into Darkness is a superb film.

I had a lot of issues going into it because people had basically spoiled half the damn thing for me in the weeks leading up to the film, but once I got past that I found the story, the characterization and the film itself as a whole to be quite satisfying, relevant to what's going on in the world today and more importantly entertaining.

Now, you guys can debate this till you're blue (or green) in the face, but that's my take on it. Critically and financially, it seems to be the case as well.

EDIT TO ADD:

More importantly: This is just one reviewer doing what all bloggers/reviewers who think they're actual, trained journalists/reviewers do: trying to declare something is one thing and one thing only for everyone else when all the blogger (I hesitate to use the term "writer") has is an opinion.

That just makes me want to not show up for the next one. Of course, that would probably lead to stories that "JJ Abrams is what drew fans to the film." So my voice is marginalized as a "fanboy" who worries about characterization and plot, is offended by all the nods, and feels they took a club to the head of the audience with that counter-terrorism storyline that was about 8 minutes of a 2-hour movie. The rest was just a story about revenge, and then tying it up at the end by saying "Don't do what you just saw in this movie." It was stupid, no one lectured the crew about what they were doing, except Scotty, who acts like a child the rest of the film.

I don't long for the days of Rick Berman. I seriously walked out of the movie theater saying "Why should I go to Star Trek 3?" Orci has nothing to do with it. The continuity errors aren't a part of it. The problem is it relies on people to know the Star Trek universe and I want a movie that stands on its own. If that is too fanboyish, then know this: This fanboy isn't going to fanboy movies. I have seen X-Men, X2, Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, the Star Wars Prequels (all three), and the Star Trek movies. That's it in the last 14 years. Star Trek 3 and X-Men: Apocalypse is all that I want to see. Not Batman/Superman. Not Star Wars: Episode VII (I can't stand JJ Abrams). I'm a very bad fanboy if that's all this is. Star Trek's reputation is what is keeping me coming back, not these movies individually, and I am probably one bad movie experience from never attending another Star Trek, and being very skeptical for another television series, if it were to materialize.

Click to expand...

-- If STID was almost entirely about revenge, then TWOK was even more so and not much else. Sorry you did miss all the nice character moments, particularly Kirk's character arc.

-- TVH was very thematically shallow. All it did was club us over the head with a broad message to take care of the environment (through the narrow message of saving the whales). It ended with telling the audience, "don't do what you just saw in this movie," that is, don't hunt whales to extinction. TUC was even more thematically shallow. Clubbing us over the head about the effects of prejudice and stereotypes and reminding us at the end that people can be very afraid of change.

-- In STID Kirk got a helluva lecture from Pike for what he did on Nibiru and apparently even before that.

-- Scotty was childish? He provided some comic relief, but he also killed a man, and was a major hero of the story.

-- Continuity errors? How could there be any? This is a new playground. It's true Trek had plenty of continuity errors in the first universe. Pointing them out is a cottage industry among fans.

-- You say the movie requires knowledge of the Trek universe and doesn't stand on its own. Elaborate, please. It stood on its own as well as any Trek movie to me.

-- I'm not sure what nods offended you, but if you are taking offense, maybe you're also taking it a wee bit too seriously. All of the movies you mentioned above are pop culture popcorn movies, after all. It's not like anyone is doing Shakespeare and mangling it terribly.

Click to expand...

My thoughts on Star Trek Into Darkness are there. The relationship with Kirk and Spock is not well-defined and, therefore, the movie fails in terms of characterization when it is the centerpiece of the movie. As for the "nods," I was referring to ripping off Star Trek movies from the past for lines at key moments of the movie ("Doctor, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few," "KHAAAAAN!!!," etc.). Ultimately, it offends me because this movie doesn't deliver a new interpretation, it's more like the same music played by a different band. If I am drawing the comparison at the theater between Kirk and Spock's death scenes, I don't need to be beat over the head with it. It begs for comparisons that wreaks of using previous continuity (very popular material, btw) to sell tickets and make it "feel" like a Star Trek movie.

I said "it's not continuity errors" and suddenly I have to defend continuity errors? No. I am not nit-picking at this movie's size of the Enterprise or what the Klingons look like in the 23rd Century. I don't care. They got me--new Trek for a new Generation. Hence, the reason I am dissatisfied with the "nods."

As for Kirk's dress down by Pike, it fails to make any impact on the chain of command, or ultimately, have any consequences for Kirk. He is Captain of the ship, demoted to Cadet, Promoted to Commander, and Captain of the ship in, I believe, 12 minutes of the movie. That's a flimsy attempt and horrible plotting.

Just for the record, "taking it too seriously" in the X-Men movies, hasn't stopped me from enjoying X-Men, X2, and Days of Future Past. These movies are just bad movies. I'm not offended that JJ Abrams is directing it. I didn't know what to expect when he was hired. I actually was excited for '09. It caused me to re-sample all Star Trek when my fandom had taken a 10-year hiatus.

A pretty good article on how a critically lauded, box office hit can have its reputation change so dramatically over the course of a year.

After the initial blush, how do you see STID a year later? Do you still love it or has contemplation tempered your assessment of the film?

I think Matt Singer at The Dissolve pretty much covers it.

Star Trek Into Darkness is so fast-paced, it actually outruns its own logic problems, another reason why it received such an unusual combination of initial positive reviews and subsequent negative buzz. Almost everyone who saw the movie enjoyed the experience. They only started to see the plot holes after thinking about it, watching it again, or reading the criticism that slowly started to cohere around the film.

I have the opposite response... I actally like it MORE now than a year ago...the whole Khan part and TWOK rip-offs.really put a damper on my enjoyment...

But now REALLY appreciate the TRULY alien world in the beginning of the movie.

And though Bruce Greenwood was in for only like 7 minutes...he showed between this and '09 why his loss would be MEANINGFUL to Kirk. (Should I start a separate Greenwood-Pike appreciation thread?)

ANd we see Pike's influence the way Kirk treats Sulu in giving him temporary command.

And in my second run noticed that the bar where Scotty went...there was one person in the background who was dressed like Caitlin Dar (from ST V), and another with sunglasses like Geordi's VISOR....any I missed there?

STID grows on me every time I watch. Nibiru and it's consequences (albeit the latter were limited) lent credibility to the film. I try not to get too wrapped around the Marcus/Khan motivation axle, although after reading many a post, I do find myself scratching my head a bit.

EDIT: Neither ST09 nor STID have done much in the way of slowing down and explaining things to the audience. I'm okay with that.

But Paramount (a division of Viacom, Inc.) knows that most of those ”Trekkies” will still show up for Star Trek 3 in summer 2016 no matter how much they disagree with the choice of Roberto Orci as director.

Click to expand...

This is the key. The fans keep showing up. They keep buying memorabilia. They keep downloading comics, building models, collecting figures. They buy the DVD and the BluRay and the Special Editions to keep their "collections" intact.

We're like a union that never strikes: useless. And so the complaints are just incessant whining.

I really think, though, if Paramount saw all that residual income dry up overnight -- if all the millions of dollars that get spent after an initial box office run just disappeared -- they'd rethink the strategy and at the least hire writers who were a little less lazy and would take a minute or two to Google a ******* map.

C'est la vie.

Click to expand...

If people (not just fans) didn't turn up to the movies or buy the merchandise, they just wouldn't make any more Star Trek movies. They'd just pop out an extra Transformers movie.

The relationship with Kirk and Spock is not well-defined and, therefore, the movie fails in terms of characterization when it is the centerpiece of the movie.

Click to expand...

I agree. Spock seems not to understand friendship in the first half of the movie. I can't understand why at the end he's so upset about Kirk's death. There was nothing throughout the movie to endear Kirk to Spock so I didn't get the rage at the end.
In TOS you always knew that Spock was friends with Kirk. They should hve just had them friends at the beginning of STID IMO and then the reporting incident at Nibiru would have had more impact on their relationship.

Anyway One Year later my verdict is I still like Star Trek Into Darkness but keep hoping the next movie will be more like TOS (but in a good way).

That just makes me want to not show up for the next one. Of course, that would probably lead to stories that "JJ Abrams is what drew fans to the film." So my voice is marginalized as a "fanboy" who worries about characterization and plot, is offended by all the nods, and feels they took a club to the head of the audience with that counter-terrorism storyline that was about 8 minutes of a 2-hour movie. The rest was just a story about revenge, and then tying it up at the end by saying "Don't do what you just saw in this movie." It was stupid, no one lectured the crew about what they were doing, except Scotty, who acts like a child the rest of the film.

I don't long for the days of Rick Berman. I seriously walked out of the movie theater saying "Why should I go to Star Trek 3?" Orci has nothing to do with it. The continuity errors aren't a part of it. The problem is it relies on people to know the Star Trek universe and I want a movie that stands on its own. If that is too fanboyish, then know this: This fanboy isn't going to fanboy movies. I have seen X-Men, X2, Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, the Star Wars Prequels (all three), and the Star Trek movies. That's it in the last 14 years. Star Trek 3 and X-Men: Apocalypse is all that I want to see. Not Batman/Superman. Not Star Wars: Episode VII (I can't stand JJ Abrams). I'm a very bad fanboy if that's all this is. Star Trek's reputation is what is keeping me coming back, not these movies individually, and I am probably one bad movie experience from never attending another Star Trek, and being very skeptical for another television series, if it were to materialize.

Click to expand...

-- If STID was almost entirely about revenge, then TWOK was even more so and not much else. Sorry you did miss all the nice character moments, particularly Kirk's character arc.

-- TVH was very thematically shallow. All it did was club us over the head with a broad message to take care of the environment (through the narrow message of saving the whales). It ended with telling the audience, "don't do what you just saw in this movie," that is, don't hunt whales to extinction. TUC was even more thematically shallow. Clubbing us over the head about the effects of prejudice and stereotypes and reminding us at the end that people can be very afraid of change.

-- In STID Kirk got a helluva lecture from Pike for what he did on Nibiru and apparently even before that.

-- Scotty was childish? He provided some comic relief, but he also killed a man, and was a major hero of the story.

-- Continuity errors? How could there be any? This is a new playground. It's true Trek had plenty of continuity errors in the first universe. Pointing them out is a cottage industry among fans.

-- You say the movie requires knowledge of the Trek universe and doesn't stand on its own. Elaborate, please. It stood on its own as well as any Trek movie to me.

-- I'm not sure what nods offended you, but if you are taking offense, maybe you're also taking it a wee bit too seriously. All of the movies you mentioned above are pop culture popcorn movies, after all. It's not like anyone is doing Shakespeare and mangling it terribly.

Click to expand...

My thoughts on Star Trek Into Darkness are there. The relationship with Kirk and Spock is not well-defined and, therefore, the movie fails in terms of characterization when it is the centerpiece of the movie. As for the "nods," I was referring to ripping off Star Trek movies from the past for lines at key moments of the movie ("Doctor, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few," "KHAAAAAN!!!," etc.). Ultimately, it offends me because this movie doesn't deliver a new interpretation, it's more like the same music played by a different band. If I am drawing the comparison at the theater between Kirk and Spock's death scenes, I don't need to be beat over the head with it. It begs for comparisons that wreaks of using previous continuity (very popular material, btw) to sell tickets and make it "feel" like a Star Trek movie.

I said "it's not continuity errors" and suddenly I have to defend continuity errors? No. I am not nit-picking at this movie's size of the Enterprise or what the Klingons look like in the 23rd Century. I don't care. They got me--new Trek for a new Generation. Hence, the reason I am dissatisfied with the "nods."

As for Kirk's dress down by Pike, it fails to make any impact on the chain of command, or ultimately, have any consequences for Kirk. He is Captain of the ship, demoted to Cadet, Promoted to Commander, and Captain of the ship in, I believe, 12 minutes of the movie. That's a flimsy attempt and horrible plotting.

Just for the record, "taking it too seriously" in the X-Men movies, hasn't stopped me from enjoying X-Men, X2, and Days of Future Past. These movies are just bad movies. I'm not offended that JJ Abrams is directing it. I didn't know what to expect when he was hired. I actually was excited for '09. It caused me to re-sample all Star Trek when my fandom had taken a 10-year hiatus.

A pretty good article on how a critically lauded, box office hit can have its reputation change so dramatically over the course of a year.

After the initial blush, how do you see STID a year later? Do you still love it or has contemplation tempered your assessment of the film?

I think Matt Singer at The Dissolve pretty much covers it.

Star Trek Into Darkness is so fast-paced, it actually outruns its own logic problems, another reason why it received such an unusual combination of initial positive reviews and subsequent negative buzz. Almost everyone who saw the movie enjoyed the experience. They only started to see the plot holes after thinking about it, watching it again, or reading the criticism that slowly started to cohere around the film.

I have the opposite response... I actally like it MORE now than a year ago...the whole Khan part and TWOK rip-offs.really put a damper on my enjoyment...

But now REALLY appreciate the TRULY alien world in the beginning of the movie.

And though Bruce Greenwood was in for only like 7 minutes...he showed between this and '09 why his loss would be MEANINGFUL to Kirk. (Should I start a separate Greenwood-Pike appreciation thread?)

ANd we see Pike's influence the way Kirk treats Sulu in giving him temporary command.

And in my second run noticed that the bar where Scotty went...there was one person in the background who was dressed like Caitlin Dar (from ST V), and another with sunglasses like Geordi's VISOR....any I missed there?

Click to expand...

Yes, a Bruce Greenwood-Pike thread would be a lot of fun. Personally, I think that Greenwood's Pike is the role model for young Kirk of the type of captain we want Kirk to be, and know that he can become in the future.

For Star Trek Into Darkness, after one year, I still enjoy it a lot. It starts off in a situation that could have just been a stand alone episode in TOS or any other series. It branches off to explore the consequences of Kirk's actions, something that he was often shielded from in TOS. His relationship with Spock is strained because of how the two of them see it.

The action pieces are a bit repetitive, but overall good fun. I like the idea of Starfleet, or parts of it, going darker because they fear another attack. It is very much a social commentary appropriate for our time.

The main thing that keeps me going back is Kirk's character arc. The writers could have stayed away from the controversy of his rapid promotion but instead use it as a way to describe how immature Kirk is in his new role. His story is his willingness to die for the sake of his crew, for the sake of the rules that he argues against, for the sake nothing more than doing the right thing. In the end, he is a better man for it, and possibly closer to TOS Kirk than he was before.

Despite the fast pace, I did enjoy each character getting their moments, but Scotty was more enjoyable for me this time. Uhura also did a great job in dealing with the Klingons as well as a more emotional heartbeat to the film. It is interesting to see the contrast between her and Spock in terms of a relationship.

Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch are excellent as villains. I think that having Cumberbatch be Khan was kind of a mistake, because they could have done more with the darker side of Starfleet. But, his performance is fantastic and Khan is truly villainous in terms of a willingness to use and kill anyone.

Admiral Marcus is a great character, and I like him a lot as a villain. There are echoes of Admiral Cartwright and Admiral Leyton, in Undiscovered Country and DS9 respectively, in his character and motivation. He starts out as filling the mentor role only for us to discover that he uses Kirk just like Khan uses Harewood in the beginning.

Overall, it is a lot of fun, with some interesting moments that are worth discussing.